Virginia certified its child support system as compliant for years. In open court, its own attorney admitted otherwise.

Introduction

That certification is a legal condition of Virginia's $158 million-a-year federal TANF block grant. DCSE's own counsel told a judge on December 3, 2025 that the system "is not set up" to do what the certification requires — and DCSE's own witness testified under oath, that same day, that the system can't operate any other way. On April 24, 2026 — about four and a half months later — Secretary of Health and Human Resources Marvin B. Figueroa, serving under Gov. Abigail Spanberger, signed the same certification anyway, as his predecessors had done for years.

In a Loudoun County, Virginia courtroom, DCSE's own District Manager testified under oath — and DCSE's own attorney told the judge outright — that the system can't do what federal law requires. That law is specific: 42 U.S.C. §§ 654(16), 654a, 654(20)(A).

*Same certification track: ~$1.42 billion in TANF block grant funding received across the years these certifications cover (2018–2026) — the general TANF block grant, not a figure specific to the child-support certification alone.

Part One — The Admission

DCSE had every number since April 2022. Why did it need an audit, an intervention, and a new court order?

If APECS worked the way Virginia certifies it does, none of the following should have been necessary: the March 1, 2019 order was unambiguous, and every input DCSE needed — the monthly obligations, the 5% annual increases, the 6% interest requirement — was already in the system by April 21, 2022, when the case reopened. Instead, DCSE's own written account shows a three-year gap discovered only in mid-2025, a full audit, a motion asking a court to step in, and — five months later — a hearing that produced an entirely new governing order that fits the system.

The Timeline April 21, 2022 — case reopens, arrears set per the April 18, 2022 order. May 16, 2025 — an accounting error is discovered. June 30, 2025 — a three-year interest gap is discovered. July 2025 — a full audit. July 31, 2025 — new balances set. August 12, 2025 — DCSE moves to intervene. October 17, 2025 — the court grants the motion. December 3, 2025 — the hearing below.

"...the 6% annual interest... had not been applied in the automated system since the case opened on April 21, 2022."Holly Parker, DCSE — July 31, 2025

"DCSE discovered an accounting error where the 5% annual increase for spousal support was not accurately applied."Holly Parker, DCSE — July 31, 2025

"In July 2025, a full audit of your case was conducted... Adjustments were made to your account on July 31, 2025, reflecting all balances determined during the audit."Holly Parker, DCSE — July 31, 2025

Reading the record — this is our synthesis, not a DCSE statement Despite that full audit, the account still could not be fully corrected under the system as it exists — the same July 31 letter that describes the audit is the letter that admits the system can't calculate compounded interest at all. Twelve days later, on August 12, 2025, DCSE moved to intervene, asking the court to determine arrears rather than continuing to administer the March 2019 order as written. Read against what came next — Prentice's December 3 request for "an order between these parties that can be administered in accordance with 14.4 of the distribution hierarchy," and the January 9, 2026 order that adopted exactly that hierarchy (Part Two, below) — the sequence reads less like DCSE asking a court to confirm a balance, and more like DCSE seeking a governing order shaped around what its system could administer, rather than fixing the system to match what the order required.

DCSE's own witness — and its own attorney — told the court the system can't do it.

On December 3, 2025, in a hearing before Judge Stephen Sincavage, DCSE's District Manager testified under oath about the system's limits. DCSE's counsel then made the agency's position clear to the court — as legal argument, not sworn testimony, but on the record and in the agency's own words.

Sworn Testimony

Q: "Could you explain when that adjustment was made and what was adjusted?"
A: "Yes. On May 16th of 2025, the adjustment was made to accurately reflect the 5% increase that should have increased annually on the spousal support amount. And on June 30th, an adjustment was made to reflect 6% interest that should have been charging on the child support arrearage throughout the life of the case, but had not been."

Kristin McDonald · District Manager, DCSE Winchester District Office — Tr. 100:11–19

Sworn Testimony

Q: "And is the system set up, is the child support payment system set up to do it any other way?"
A: "No."

Kristin McDonald · District Manager, DCSE Winchester District Office — Tr. 102:18–20

0:00

Argument by Counsel — Not Under Oath

"I think I want to make sure that the Court's clear in terms of our position as to what the Court puts in the order for what is owed today versus how to administer the payments in the future."

Anne Prentice · Assistant Attorney General, Counsel for DCSE — Tr. 121:17–23

"What we have an issue with is if the Court were to issue an order telling the administrative agency how to allocate those hierarchy of payments, the system's not set up to do that. It's just creating the problem that we're trying to avoid by coming here today."

Anne Prentice · Assistant Attorney General, Counsel for DCSE — Tr. 122:5–9

"We don't want the Court to create an order. Basically, that we're not able to administer or maybe we won't be able to keep this case open because we can't administer that order telling us to allocate things differently than the system is set up to do."

Anne Prentice — Tr. 123:4–8

0:00

For the record DCSE's counsel referenced an internal agency policy — cited in the hearing only as "14.4" — governing how the system's payment hierarchy is administered, and handed the court a printed copy for reference. That policy has since been obtained: DCSE Program Manual (May 2024), § 14.4, "Distribution Hierarchy," Resources p. 645. It confirms the same current-support-first hierarchy described in the testimony above.

DCSE's own ledger said $11,047.04, as of November 30, 2025. The order signed six weeks later said $63,493.98 — for the same date.

The child support obligation in this case is fixed by its own terms: $2,000 per month, beginning June 1, 2016, increasing 5% annually on the principal, running for a closed 51-month period that ended in September 2020 — a total obligation of approximately $120,000, principal and the court-ordered 5% annual increases together. Separately, the February 1, 2019 order requires 6% interest, compounded annually, on whatever portion of that obligation remains unpaid. Once the support period closed in 2020, no new principal has been owed. From that point forward, DCSE's mandate — under its own governing orders and under 42 U.S.C. § 654a(e)(4)(A), which requires the case registry to reflect amounts "due… under the order" — is to enforce collection of that fixed obligation and correctly calculated interest. Nothing in that mandate authorizes the balance itself to be increased, recalculated, or reset by agreement of the parties before the court, outside the formula the governing orders already set.

DCSE's own certified case ledger put the balance, as of November 30, 2025, at $11,047.04. The order entered six weeks later — covering the identical date, November 30, 2025 — set the balance at $63,493.98. That is a $52,446.94 discrepancy between two records describing the same day, not a balance that grew over time. Ordinary interest accrual cannot account for it, because no time elapsed between the two figures.

"$11,047.04"DCSE's own certified case ledger, as of November 30, 2025

"$63,493.98"January 9, 2026 order, "as of November 30, 2025"

Reading the record — this is our synthesis, not a DCSE statement DCSE's own Assistant Attorney General endorsed the order containing the $63,493.98 figure. DCSE's mandate — under its governing orders, its own Program Manual, and federal law — is to enforce the fixed obligation accurately, not to allow the certified balance to be set aside in favor of a figure DCSE's own records do not support. No document obtained to date reconciles the two numbers, or explains how a balance and its "as of" date can conflict with DCSE's own certification of the same date.

Because the certified balance was inflated by $52,446.94 above DCSE's own contemporaneous ledger figure, every enforcement tool tied to that balance — described in Part Five, below — operated on a larger, longer-lasting number than DCSE's own records support. The passport certification requirement under § 654(31)(A) applies once arrears exceed $2,500; an inflated balance keeps that threshold cleared for longer than the true balance would. Wage garnishment, federal tax refund interception under § 664, and credit bureau reporting under § 666(a)(7) are all scaled to the certified arrears amount. A balance $52,446.94 higher than DCSE's own ledger supported did not just misstate the debt — it extended the reach and duration of every one of DCSE's collection tools against it.

§ 654a(e)(4)(A)§ 654a(d)§ 654(31)(A)§ 664§ 666(a)(7)

Part Three — "Reference Only"

DCSE's own position: the balance is "for reference only" — then enforced anyway.

Two of DCSE's own emails state plainly that its reported balance cannot be relied on as final. That position was repeated at least twice — once in November 2024, and again in June 2025, three weeks after the account holder paid approximately $51,000 specifically to satisfy the balance.

"VA DCSE's arrears balances are intended for reference only, until they have been adjudicated in Loudoun County Circuit Court to include any compounded interest."Sue Bullard, DCSE, email to the account holder — November 12, 2024

"No sir . . I will not have accurate updated balances until the Circuit Court Judge provides updated adjudication balances in the upcoming hearing."Sue Bullard, DCSE, email to the account holder — June 6, 2025, three weeks after a ~$51,000 payment

Reading the record — this is our synthesis, not a DCSE statement DCSE's own November 2024 email states the inputs it already had: an April 6, 2022 court order setting child support arrears at $86,557.09 and spousal support arrears at $255,383.15, both as of February 1, 2022 — plus DCSE's own confirmation that its balances were "last reconciled... on 05.03.2022." The interest rate (6% compounded annually) and the 5% annual spousal-support escalation were both already set by prior court orders. 42 U.S.C. § 654a(e)(4)(A) requires the case registry to reflect amounts "due... under the order" on an ongoing basis — not a figure the system recalculates only after a new hearing. DCSE had every input needed to state an accurate current balance from April 2022 forward. Its own written position, instead, is that its balance is "for reference only" until a court re-adjudicates it — a position repeated even after a $51,000 payment specifically intended to resolve it. That same "reference only" balance was the number behind the passport hold, the wage garnishments, and the tax intercepts documented in Part Five, below.

§ 654a(e)(4)(A)§ 654a(d)

Part Four — A Case in Point

One account. Simple arithmetic. A balance that shouldn't exist.

Figures below are approximate, drawn from the account holder's case records for DCSE Case No. 0005005576.

Child support obligation period: June 1, 2016 – September 2020 (51 months)
Total obligation, that period: ~$120,000
Required payment order (governing hierarchy at the time): Child support credited first, in full — then spousal support*
Total paid to date (August 2026): ~$305,000+
Child-support balance APECS currently reports: ~$61,500

* This was the governing hierarchy under the March 1, 2019 order. It was changed on January 9, 2026 — see Part Two, above — after DCSE's own attorney testified the system could not implement it.

If the required "child support first" order had been applied to ~$305,000 in payments against a ~$120,000 child-support obligation — the kind of running calculation a certified system is supposed to perform on its own — child support would have been satisfied years ago, with the remainder credited to spousal support. APECS instead reports roughly $61,500 in child-support arrears still outstanding, a balance built in part from manual, after-the-fact corrections (Part Six, below) that were never disclosed to the non-custodial parent before they were applied — from the same system DCSE's own witness testified, under oath, cannot correctly implement a custom court-ordered payment allocation (Part One, above).

Part Five — The Legal Basis

One certification. Four powers over a life. Every one of them now in question.

Virginia's authority to take each of these four actions exists only because the state certified it has "in effect" the specific federal procedures below — most of them required by 42 U.S.C. § 666, itself a condition of the § 654(20)(A) certification.

Passport Blocked

U.S. Department of State denial confirmed in writing by the U.S. Embassy, Ankara, December 8, 2023, citing HHS certification under 42 U.S.C. § 652(k). The certified balance behind that denial was extended, in part, by a manual correction the system should have applied automatically years earlier — and that correction was never disclosed to the non-custodial parent before it was made (Part Six, below).

What § 654(31)(A) requires: "each individual concerned is afforded notice of such determination and the consequences thereof, and an opportunity to contest the determination" before a new arrears determination is certified.

DCSE told the custodial parent in writing that the passport hold would lift June 30, 2025, and that DCSE's own legal unit had said it couldn't calculate the additional interest without a court order. Three days later, on June 30, 2025, DCSE added the interest anyway — no court order, no advance notice to the account holder.

Wage Garnishments

~$110,000+ garnished, 2022–2025, against a balance shaped in part by manual corrections the system should have applied automatically (Part Six, below). No advance notice was sent — see below.

What § 666(b)(4)(A) requires: the State must send notice "that the withholding has commenced" and "of the procedures to follow" to contest it as a mistake of fact.

No notice was given before any garnishment was applied. Notice was provided only months later, and only after it was formally demanded.

Tax Intercepts

Federal tax refunds redirected to a balance shaped by the same pattern of manual, after-the-fact correction rather than automatic system tracking. IRS account transcript for tax year 2022 confirms a $47,003.59 refund applied to non-IRS debt. DCSE's own manual separately requires the NCP's "specific, documented permission" before any intercepted funds are applied to fees (§ 11.4(G)(5)(c), Fiscal 471) — not yet confirmed whether obtained.

What § 664(a)(3) requires: before referral, the State "shall send notice" instructing the individual of the steps to contest the determination.

No pre-offset notice was given at any time.

Negative Credit Reporting

Reported to credit bureaus based on a balance shaped in part by manual corrections the system should have made automatically (Part Six, below) — and reported without the notice federal law requires before such information reaches a credit bureau. Specific dates, bureaus, and score impact to be added once documented.

What § 666(a)(7)(B) requires: information may be reported "only after such parent has been afforded all due process required under State law, including notice and a reasonable opportunity to contest the accuracy of such information."

No such notice was given at any point since the case reopened in April 2022.

Part Six — The Ledger, Against the Statute

Each entry below is a documented act, tied to the exact federal requirement it fails to meet.

Sourced from DCSE's own case ledger, correspondence, and sworn courtroom testimony for Case No. 0005005576.

May 2022 – June 2024

A flat $1,298.34 charged every month, for 17 straight months

A system correctly maintaining this account would recalculate interest against the real, declining balance every month — that's what § 654a(e)(4)(A) and (e)(5)(A) require. Instead, the same $1,298.34 was charged every month for 17 straight months without ever varying — evidence the recalculation wasn't happening automatically at all. Reverse-engineered, the flat charge implies a fixed "phantom" principal of $259,668 that never matched the real account. DCSE's own manual confirms the system does not self-correct an overpaying account — "the automated system does not automatically generate a refund to an NCP who overpays on an open case" (§ 11.4(E), Fiscal 468) — meaning correction requires a person to notice and act, the same pattern of undisclosed, after-the-fact manual correction documented throughout this ledger.

§ 654a(e)(4)(A)§ 654a(d)

Certification signed during this period: John Littel, March 15, 2023.

May 16, 2025

$24,906.36 applied in one lump sum — for an increase that was supposed to happen every January

Confirmed Under Oath — Kristi McDonald

A system correctly administering this order would apply the parties' 5% annual spousal-support escalation automatically, every January, as the agreement requires. Instead, per DCSE's own sworn testimony, years of that increase went unapplied — then arrived all at once, as a single $24,906.36 manual entry on May 16, 2025, a date with no connection to the agreement's own annual schedule. The account holder wasn't told until July 2025, and DCSE has not provided the underlying calculation despite being asked for it — no notice, before or at the time the entry was made, as § 654(31)(A) requires. A manual adjustment of this kind requires supervisor approval under DCSE Program Manual § 11.2(F)(9), Fiscal 459 — whether that approval exists is not yet confirmed.

§ 654a(e)(5)(A)§ 654(31)(A)

June 30, 2025

$10,988.74–$11,390.66 applied June 30, 2025 — three days after DCSE's own legal unit said it couldn't be calculated without a court order

Per a June 27, 2025 email from DCSE Support Enforcement Specialist Sue Bullard to the custodial parent, DCSE confirmed in writing that the arrears balance would be paid off June 30, 2025, the case would close, and the passport hold would be released that same day "as we will no longer show any child support arrears." The same email states DCSE's own legal unit had reviewed the orders and advised that DCSE "is not able to calculate the compounded interest that may be due" without a court order setting the total amount owed. Three days later, on June 30, 2025 — the date DCSE had told the custodial parent the hold would lift — DCSE added a new interest charge anyway, with no court order in hand, keeping the certification above the $2,500 threshold and the case open. A July 16, 2025 email from DCSE to the account holder describes the addition as $10,988.74 and states the underlying calculation was "currently under review"; sworn testimony given five months later, on December 3, 2025, cites a different figure — $11,390.66 — for the same entry. DCSE's own written position, three days earlier, was that it lacked the legal authority to perform this calculation without a court order. It made the calculation anyway.

§ 654(31)(A)§ 654a(e)(4)(A)§ 654a(d)

January 28, 2026

$97,349.12 added, then $96,719.86 subtracted — same day, no explanation for either

Two large entries on the same day — a $97,349.12 addition, then a $96,719.86 reduction that almost, but not exactly, reverses it — is not what an automated system produces; it's the signature of a manual correction made without a visible audit trail. Whatever the underlying cause, no notice of either entry — or of the $629.26 net increase they left behind — was provided to the non-custodial parent, the same notice § 654(31)(A) and § 654a(e)(5)(A) require. DCSE's own manual requires supervisor approval for any unapproved adjustment (§ 11.2(F)(9), Fiscal 459) and, if the correction addressed a Division error, a "dual disbursement" record (§ 11.4(F), Fiscal 468–469). Whether either record exists has not yet been confirmed — a records request is pending. On April 30, 2026, a formal written demand for a full explanation and documentation was sent to five named DCSE staff, with a five-business-day deadline (May 7, 2026). No response was received by that deadline.

§ 654a(d)§ 654a(e)(4)(A)

2022–2025

$110,000+ garnished; $58,565 in federal tax refunds intercepted

Every one of these enforcement actions assumes the underlying balance is accurate and current — the exact thing § 654a(g)(1)(B)–(C) requires the system to monitor automatically. Instead, the balance behind them was repeatedly built by hand, months or years after the fact, through the entries documented above — and at least some of those entries, the May and June 2025 additions, were never disclosed to the non-custodial parent before being applied.

§ 654a(g)(1)(B)–(C)

Dec. 3, 2025

DCSE's own witness and its own attorney tell the court, on the record, that the system can't do it

McDonald's answer is sworn testimony. Prentice's statements are the agency's legal argument, made openly in court. See Part One, above.

§ 654a(e)(5)(A)

Certification signed about 4.5 months later: Marvin B. Figueroa, April 24, 2026.

Part Seven — The Paper Trail

Four Secretaries, four signatures, one repeated promise.

Every certified Virginia TANF State Plan since at least 2018 contains the same sentence, signed by whoever held the office of Secretary of Health and Human Resources at the time — obtained via Virginia FOIA request.

2018

Daniel Carey, MDSecretary, Health and Human Resources · Jan. 2018 – Nov. 2021 · PYs 2018–2019

2019–2022

Certification(s) not yet obtainedPending Virginia FOIA request

2023

John LittelSigned March 15, 2023 · PYs 2024–2027

2024

Janet Vestal KellySigned Sept. 19, 2024 · Term: July 2024 – Jan. 2026

2025

Certification not yet obtainedPending Virginia FOIA request

2026

Marvin B. FigueroaSigned April 24, 2026 · Serving under Gov. Spanberger — about 4.5 months after the Dec. 3 testimony

Part Eight — What Federal Law Requires

The exact language the certifications are measured against.

Why This Is About TANF Funding, Specifically

The Funding

Virginia's TANF Block Grant

$158 million / year

conditioned on ↓

42 U.S.C. § 602(a)(2)

State Plan Certifications

Several numbered conditions the state's chief executive must certify

condition #2 of several ↓

The Statute's Exact Words
"...the State will operate a child support enforcement program under the State plan approved under part D."

matches, word for word ↓

The FOIA'd Certifications

"...the Commonwealth of Virginia will operate a child support enforcement program under the Virginia State Plan approved under part D of Title IV..."

Signed by four Secretaries, 2018–2026 — Part Seven, above

This isn't a coincidence or a loose connection — it's a named, numbered paragraph within the TANF certification statute itself.

The certification, decoded — same words, same law

What the certification says:
"…under the Virginia State Plan approved under part D of Title IV of the Social Security Act."

Codified at:
42 U.S.C. §§ 651–669b

contains

The provisions below:
§ 654(16) · § 654a · § 654(31)

42 U.S.C. § 654(16) Contradicted by the Record

Requires a statewide automated system "designed effectively and efficiently to assist management in the administration of the State plan, so as to control, account for, and monitor all the factors in the support enforcement collection… process."

The record: The cumulative pattern documented throughout this page — flat, non-recalculating interest charges; years-late manual corrections; DCSE's own manual admitting the system depends on manually entered data and that "an incorrect support order amount or payment frequency will cause the payment to allocate incorrectly" — is evidence the system does not "control, account for, and monitor all the factors" as required.

§ 654a(e)(5)(A) Contradicted by the Record

Requires the State to "promptly establish and update, maintain, and regularly monitor" case records "on the basis of… judicial proceedings and orders."

The record: Sworn testimony, Dec. 3, 2025 — the system "is not set up" to allocate payments per a court-ordered hierarchy.

§ 654a(e)(4)(A) Contradicted by the Record

The case registry must record amounts "due or overdue under the order" — tied to the order's actual terms, not an independent figure.

The record: A flat $1,298.34 charged for 17 straight months, never matching the declining balance it was calculated against.

§ 654(31)(A) Contradicted by the Record

Before certifying arrears over $2,500 for passport action, "each individual concerned is afforded notice of such determination… and an opportunity to contest."

The record: $24,906.36 (May 2025) and $10,988.74–$11,390.66 (June 30, 2025) — the latter added three days after DCSE's own legal unit said, in writing, that it couldn't be calculated without a court order.

Virginia certified its child support system as compliant for years, drawing $1.42 billion* in federal funds. In open court, DCSE's own attorney — an Assistant Attorney General — admitted otherwise.